Marital, unitive, procreative

[Bookcat]

There are quite a few off topic comments and uncharitable remarks above, which I will ignore. I also do not reply to posts which exaggerate or distort my position in order to claim to have refuted it. Also, I’m not participating in the discussion with Lauds, because he/she openly rejects Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

I’ve not read every post above, but I have not noticed anyone using the three fonts of morality to determine what is moral in the marital bedroom. The three fonts of morality is the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, which is also ignored in most of the above posts. Also, many posters above offer no real theological argument to support their position.

Let’s apply the three fonts of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

1. A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The moral object of an unnatural sexual act is evil because all such acts lack the procreative meaning (neither are such acts truly unitive or truly marital). To be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive, procreative, and marital. Therefore, every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

The absence of climax does not cause an intrinsically evil sexual act to become moral because the moral object remains unchanged; the moral object is the sole determinant of the moral species of any deliberately chosen act. The result called sexual climax is a consequence in the third font, and so it does not affect the moral object in the second font.

1. circumstances - the circumstance that the unnatural act lacks sexual climax does not change the moral object from evil to good; the circumstance that the wife cannot achieve sexual climax without the aforementioned act does not change the moral object from evil to good. No circumstance or context can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Pope John Paul II: “The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species’, or ‘in itself’, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

In my several posts above, I’ve stated a clear theological argument, based on the writings of Saints and the teachings of the Magisterium. I’ve written a couple of articles on this subject, containing the same theological arguments, but in greater detail.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

It is within good orthodox Catholic moral theology that when the wife experiences climax either during foreplay or during actual physical intercourse or right after the climax of the husband (which can only take place during the actual physical act of intercourse) --it is a good act. All forms part of the maritial act. (of course the actions themselves need to be good…) All of these form a “moral unity” as part of the one marital act.

One source I will point you to off the top of my head from the ones you posted as good sources of moral theology – so I know you will have it is the the one from Germain Grisez – go look it up in the second volume pg 642.

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

section 1 h iii 2nd paragraph

 

[carinapir]

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

section 1 h iii 2nd paragraph

Thank you for the source! It states it’s position very clearly on the matter of when/how manual and oral stimulation can be chaste.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you for the source! It states it’s position very clearly on the matter of when/how manual and oral stimulation can be chaste.

and it is from his list…

 

[Sporaticus]

copied from twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

Moreover, in teaching this sexual morality, the theologians did not act on their own authority. The authors of the manuals were approved authors, because the popes and bishops authorized their texts for use in teaching seminarians, who as priests would put into pastoral practice what they had learned. The popes and bishops themselves fulfilled their responsibility to teach sexual morality mainly in this way. (On other matters, of course, where theologians disagreed or treated obscure questions or dealt with explanations and details with little or no pastoral impact, their approved status did not imply that the popes and bishops themselves taught what the theologians taught.) Having once been seminarians themselves, the popes and bishops knew the teaching; they also knew the difficulty many of the faithful experienced trying to live by it. Therefore, in matters of sexual morality with great pastoral impact, about which all the approved authors agreed, the popes and bishops of the whole world clearly intended to teach precisely what they authorized their theologians to teach. This universal, constant, and most firm teaching of the popes and the bishops in communion with them around the world meets the conditions which Vatican II articulated for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Although the Church has not solemnly defined the teaching excluding parvity of matter with respect to all intentional sexual sins against the good of marriage, that teaching has been infallibly taught

Makes you want to think of Ron Conte and cringe

---

and from Ron Conte’s website:
written by Ron Conte about him and the next two Pope’s

I understand, not as a prediction of the future, but as the way that the world works, that my writings will have repeated ups and downs, increases and decreases in popularity, successive waves of approvals and condemnations, and more approval, and more condemnation, again and again, both in the Church and in the world.

eschatology:

When any prediction of mine fails, even only on a minor point, many persons will condemn the entire body of work on that basis. And when my predictions succeed, there will be an even stronger push to condemn these writings, because people will be afraid that the remainder of my predictions is also true. They will petition Bishops and the Holy See for some type of condemnation or negative decision on my eschatology. They will make all kinds of false accusations. They will distort my predictions and my work in theology apart from eschatology. From time to time, they will succeed in convincing one Bishop or another, or one prominent priest or lay leader or another, in publicly speaking against my work, to one degree of disapproval or another.

The next Pope in particular will speak against my work in eschatology, in a limited way and to a limited extent, but this will be misrepresented very widely as if it were an utter condemnation of all my work and of me personally. This type of event happened to Padre Pio (though he is much holier than me) and to the writings of St. Faustina (whose writings are greater than mine). If it happens to the greater person and the greater work, then the lesser person and the lesser work will not be spared.

The next Pope (the one after Pope Benedict XVI, whom I believe will be Cardinal Arinze/Pope Pius XIII) will give an order contraining me concerning my writings in eschatology. But this will not prevent the dissemination of these ideas, and it will be only for a limited time.

 

[Antrim]

Ron
Are you saying that Father Chad Ripperger and Father J’oseLavatida does not use the three Fonts and the church does teach that the wife should be brought to Orgasm after the husbands climax in order to help her conceive.
You ask either one of those priests and they will tell you so.

Antrim

 

[Bookcat]

It is within good orthodox Catholic moral theology that when the wife experiences climax either during foreplay or during actual physical intercourse or right after the climax of the husband (which can only take place during the actual physical act of intercourse) --it is a good act. All forms part of the maritial act. (of course the actions themselves need to be good…) All of these form a “moral unity” as part of the one marital act.

One source I will point you to off the top of my head from the ones you posted as good sources of moral theology – so I know you will have it is the the one from Germain Grisez – go look it up in the second volume pg 642.

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

section 1 h iii 2nd paragraph

 

[onmyknees]

baylee baylee is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: December 7, 2004
Posts: 336
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: marital, unitive, procreative
Quote:
Originally Posted by carinapir View Post
I have a question. If the context cannot transform an act then how can the Church justify the Just War doctrine? How can they not forbid Catholics from going to war and committing what is essentially still murder?

It seems that context can matter in very specific ways, so it is reasonable that certain acts of manual or oral stimulation, when done to promote the marital act, could become natural within the context of marriage.

I’m I totally off base here?
Actually, this is interesting. The Church offers circumstances when war/murder is allowed…and yet there are no circumstances when a man can ejaculate outside his wife…EVER. Apparently the latter is more sinful than murder…seriously?

baylee and carinapir,

The problem with your arguments is that a just war is not equal to murder. Yes, murder is always an intrinsic evil but when you have a just war it for self defense. We have a right to defend ourselves when someone tries to murder us. I am so glad that we can respond in self defense for many reasons one being that my dh is a cop. If he ever had to kill someone to save his life, I would support him.

By the way it is not sinful when the man accidentally ejaculates outside outside of his wife.
The problem with your argument is that

 

[baylee]

The problem with your arguments is that a just war is not equal to murder. Yes, murder is always an intrinsic evil but when you have a just war it for self defense. We have a right to defend ourselves when someone tries to murder us. I am so glad that we can respond in self defense for many reasons one being that my dh is a cop. If he ever had to kill someone to save his life, I would support him.

I guess what I’m saying is that there are still instances when killing another is allowed. However, there is never an instance when the other is allowed (and I’m not talking about accidental just as you arenot talking about accidental killing).

And to a certain extent I know it’s ridiculous to compare the two…but I guess that’s my point. If ejaculation outside actually killed life, then I would agree wholeheartedly…but we know that it doesn’t.

Potential for life is not the same as life. Just ask a pro-lifer who believes that life begins at conception and a pro-choicer who says it’s not life…it’s potential for life. Two very different things.

 

[Bookcat]

baylee baylee is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: December 7, 2004
Posts: 336
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: marital, unitive, procreative
Quote:
Originally Posted by carinapir View Post
I have a question. If the context cannot transform an act then how can the Church justify the Just War doctrine? How can they not forbid Catholics from going to war and committing what is essentially still murder?

It seems that context can matter in very specific ways, so it is reasonable that certain acts of manual or oral stimulation, when done to promote the marital act, could become natural within the context of marriage.

I’m I totally off base here?
Actually, this is interesting. The Church offers circumstances when war/murder is allowed…and yet there are no circumstances when a man can ejaculate outside his wife…EVER. Apparently the latter is more sinful than murder…seriously?

baylee and carinapir,

The problem with your arguments is that a just war is not equal to murder. Yes, murder is always an intrinsic evil but when you have a just war it for self defense. We have a right to defend ourselves when someone tries to murder us. I am so glad that we can respond in self defense for many reasons one being that my dh is a cop. If he ever had to kill someone to save his life, I would support him.

By the way it is not sinful when the man accidentally ejaculates outside outside of his wife.

        The problem with your argument is that

hello,

not sure which post you were replying to…but you will note that i have replyed to Ron about things he has said that is not correct …so i do not want you to think i am defending his positions.

that being said…yes intrinsically evil acts can not be made good by the circumstances…

however …one must look aways at what the act is. what the definition of it is. Murder is the unjust taking of innocent life. A just war is something else…see the Catechism.

so it is not that the circumstances change murder into something good…it is that one is one thing and the other is the other.

or to take an example from this thread. masterbation is an intrinsically evil act. but the foreplay described in my post able is part of the marital act…it is not the circumstances that changes things here…it is the very nature of the act. for the wife to climax at any point during the whole context of the marital act is different than to seek this outside the marital act (with no continuity with the act). there is a “moral unity” . but read what i wrote about for better understanding. (note the husband must climax in the physical union of the marital act …the wife may at any point during the total event…)

the Church is very clear that ‘intrinsically evil’ acts are not made good by their circumstances…but that is not what we are talking about. Ron here is not correct.

 

[tafan]

Bookcat:

or to take an example from this thread. masterbation is an intrinsically evil act. but the foreplay described in my post able is part of the marital act…it is not the circumstances that changes things here…it is the very nature of the act. for the wife to climax at any point during the whole context of the marital act is different than to seek this outside the marital act (with no continuity with the act). there is a “moral unity” . but read what i wrote about for better understanding. (note the husband must climax in the physical union of the marital act …the wife may at any point during the total event…)

This is the key point in this entire thread and it is where Ron C. misses the boat.

The Catechism of the Catholic church gives a simple definition of masturbation:

“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.” (CCC 2352)

Now, if we take this defintion as literal and complete, we would soon find that nothing at all is allowed, since the actual act of intercourse itself fits the criteria. Instead, the church, in its wisdom, relies on common sense. We all know what masturbation and mutual masturbation is. Some of us may not want to admit it, but we do. And anyone who has been married (or knows anything about the female/male physical body )realizes that the marital act starts before and sometimes after the central part of the act. So the stimulation that occurs during this period of time no more fits in the definition given above than the actual act of intercourse. Or conversely, if the stimulation that occurs as part of the marital embrace is masturbation by the above defition, so is the sexual intercourse itself.

So where Ron C. misses the boat is that he simply does not understand what is masturbation and what is not masturbation. Masturbation is intrinsically evil, that is correct. Murder is intrinsically evil, that is correct. Genital stimulation as part of the marital embrace is not masturbation (this should be obvious) just as killing in self-defence is not murder.

(I can’t believe I actually added to this thread, which really does seem like a ridicuous argument, but I suppose the bad advice could be damaging to some marriages if people fell for it, so I guess it is worth it).

 

[OraLabora]

To be fair to Mr. Conte he has no practical experience in the matter. His arguments are all highly theoretical and not at all grounded in common sense.

We foot soldiers in the trenches speak from experience and know that if we approached the marital act the way Mr. Conte did, we’d either kill the marriage, or kill any chances of the marital embrace within it.

Both are intrinsically evil.

One needs to look at the big picture a little bit. Mr. Conte can’t see the forest for the trees!!!

 

[tafan]

To be fair to Mr. Conte he has no practical experience in the matter. His arguments are all highly theoretical and not at all grounded in common sense.

!!

I suppose we should be fair to him, but this is not a valid excuse. Giving him this excuse will lead us down the slippery slope to the idea that priests are not good counselors in these areas because they have no experience in the matter. I can think of several priests who explain this very well online who presumably also do not have experience in the matter. Archbiship Chaput not only gave the imprimatur to West’s book, but he wrote the introduction. I suppose that means he agrees with it and I also suppose he does not have experience in the matter.

Mr Conte’s opinion on this matter has several faults. It is bad theological reasoning, cloaked in a detailed and advanced argument techniques that could easily deceive someone into thinking he was right. It is a very dangerous teaching, IMO, since the marital act is quite important to a holy, sacramental marriage. He continually challenges people to address his reasoning on a point-by-point basis and implies the lack of a response places those opposing him in the “don’t want to live by the rules” camp, which casts very well meaning people in the light of “cafeteria catholics”. Finally, he does not provide any well reasoned response to the articles referenced by the other side (one by a FSSP priest non-the-less, who would certainly not be liberal in the areas of sexual morality).

I am new around here and maybe overstepping my bounds. Sorry to the forum if that is the case.

 

[carinapir]

So where Ron C. misses the boat is that he simply does not understand what is masturbation and what is not masturbation. Masturbation is intrinsically evil, that is correct. Murder is intrinsically evil, that is correct. Genital stimulation as part of the marital embrace is not masturbation (this should be obvious) just as killing in self-defence is not murder.

Thank you! That was the point I tried feebly to make.

 

[OraLabora]

I suppose we should be fair to him, but this is not a valid excuse. Giving him this excuse will lead us down the slippery slope to the idea that priests are not good counselors in these areas because they have no experience in the matter.

Ahh, but priests DO have practical experience in the matter. Not practical in the sense that they’ve done it, but practical because they have had to apply the theology in the confessional for many years. In the case of my confessor who is 80, 58 years of professed religious life and 53 years of priesthood.

This sort of disinterested experience is very valuable: in short “they have heard it all” and have seen wounded folks deal with difficult situations and have come to appreciate what makes sense and what doesn’t.

Similarly a cardiac surgeon may never have had a heart attack, but he has considerable practical experience of heart attacks, and can speak with authority on the subject, whereas someone who hasn’t had the experience, say a GP, can’t.

In fact the priest in this case may be more “experienced” in the matter than the newlywed couple looking for advice!

Mr Conte has neither the practical experience of living a married vocation, nor the practical experience of offering sound counsel to married couples. Moreover his opinions have not even had the test review by competent authority. Most solidly married and experienced folks who went to him for “confession” with him would laugh their way out of the confessional. On the other hand my confessor stands a chance of giving them a new insight.

Therefore his opinions on the matter need to be qualified as such, lest he lead married couples into serious errors than can jeopardize the marriage.

 

[LittleDeb]

Excellent analysis of the situation, OraLabora and tafan! You have illustrated my purpose in joining this thread, in an objective way. Thank you for you contributions. As someone in the trenches, (married vocation) I am so very thankful for those leading the way (our beloved priests.)

Welcome to CAF, tafan! I hope your time here is fruitful and enjoyable.

 

[Bookcat]

Therefore his opinions on the matter need to be qualified as such, lest he lead married couples into serious errors than can jeopardize the marriage.

opinions which are even at odds with the sources he recommends…

 

[mamabear3]

I think Ron Conte is a puritan.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am not a moderator, and I do not play one at home.

However, I am very uncomfortable with the posts that trash a certain individual.

I think that vigorous discussion is important. I think that addressing issues head on is important.

I will even accept a few “that’s a really stoopid idea” kind of posts. But addressing individuals and calling them out for simply being is really wrong.

Let’s all (me included) try to tone down the *ad hominen *attacks on people we disagree with.

 

[tafan]

Ahh, but priests DO have practical experience in the matter. Not practical in the sense that they’ve done it, but practical because they have had to apply the theology in the confessional for many years. In the case of my confessor who is 80, 58 years of professed religious life and 53 years of priesthood.

This sort of disinterested experience is very valuable: in short “they have heard it all” and have seen wounded folks deal with difficult situations and have come to appreciate what makes sense and what doesn’t.

Similarly a cardiac surgeon may never have had a heart attack, but he has considerable practical experience of heart attacks, and can speak with authority on the subject, whereas someone who hasn’t had the experience, say a GP, can’t.

In fact the priest in this case may be more “experienced” in the matter than the newlywed couple looking for advice!

…

Very good point, I stand corrected.

 

[mamabear3]

excuse me, I think Ron Conte’s ideas are puritan in nature.